Hi,
I agree with Elias that 16807 is a pretty arbitrary and useless value, but
for the sake of IBM APL2 compatibility I have changed GNU APL to use it
as well. SVN 355.
Note that localizing ⎕RLis currently not fully correct, but this ts on
my TODO list
/// Jürgen
On 07/02/2014 05:19 AM, Blake McBride wrote:
Since ⎕RL is defined as starting at a specific value in their language
manual, and IBM APL 2 operates that way, I can imagine someone testing
that value in a program to see if any random numbers had been
generated previously. (I agree it is a stupid and not entirely valid
test, but I cannot predict how other people will use a standard...)
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Elias Mårtenson <loke...@gmail.com
<mailto:loke...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Because adopting a clearly arbitrary value that provides
absolutely no benefit, instead of something slightly more logical
while still conforming with the spec is, in my opinion, the better
way to go.
No one is going to fork the project over this, so this is in the
hands of Jürgen. Have have own opinion and I've made it clear. No
need to discuss this further I think.
Regards,
Elias
On 2 July 2014 11:09, Blake McBride <blake1...@gmail.com
<mailto:blake1...@gmail.com>> wrote:
No need to argue. Nowhere is the random number generator
algorithm specified, but ⎕RL is. I thought we long ago agreed
that, except for extensions, we were attempting to match the
IBM APL standard - for better or worse. Additionally, in any
area where it is arbitrary or pointless, why not just match
the standard and avoid controversy whether you think it is
meaningless or not?
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Elias Mårtenson
<loke...@gmail.com <mailto:loke...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I'd argue because GNU APL uses a different random number
generator, so using the same RL value is pointless at
best, and can raise unfulfilled expectations and confusion
at worst.
Regards,
Elias
On 2 July 2014 10:57, Blake McBride <blake1...@gmail.com
<mailto:blake1...@gmail.com>> wrote:
As I've stated before, I am not smart enough to
understand that spec. IBM's language manual is
readable, and the value it is clear about is what I
expected. Also, I just tested IBM APL 2. Initial ⎕RL
is 16807. If any value is valid, why not match IBM
APL 2 and their Language Manual?
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Elias Mårtenson
<loke...@gmail.com <mailto:loke...@gmail.com>> wrote:
The standard says the following:
/"The initial value of random-link in a
clear-workspace is that member of the internal-/
/value-set for random-link given by the
implementation-parameter initial-random-link."/
So, setting it to 1 seems to be reasonable enough.
Regards,
Elias
On 2 July 2014 10:07, Blake McBride
<blake1...@gmail.com <mailto:blake1...@gmail.com>>
wrote:
According to the IBM APL2 Language Manual
(page 421 AND page 322), ⎕RL initial value,
and upon )CLEAR should be 16807. GNU APL
seems to be setting it to 1.
Thanks.
Blake
